The indefinite article

Jesus replied, “Where I am going, you cannot follow now, but you will follow later.”

Peter asked, “Lord, why can’t I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you.”

Then Jesus answered, “Will you really lay down your life for me? I tell you the truth, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times!

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going.”

Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my father as well. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” [John 13:36-14:6]

Who remembers the Schoolhouse Rock cartoons and songs from the 1970s? Even my kids watch them today on DVD and reruns. There was a series about math, about politics, and about grammar. My favorites were “Conjunction junction, what’s your function,” and “Interjection,” and “I’m just a bill, sitting here on Capitol Hill.” I think they remain one of the most brilliant television learning tools ever created. But there was a serious gap in Schoolhouse Rock, for which I think America’s youth have suffered for the past 35 years. They never created an episode about the most important part of speech. The article…I believe that if Schoolhouse Rock had taught us the difference between the definite and indefinite article, English speakers would be a more enlightened crowd.

Okay…I know a few of you are trying to remember what an article is…

“The” is a definite article.

“A” and “an” are indefinite articles.

“I am the way, the truth, and the life,” has a very different meaning than “I am a way, a truth, and a life,” or even “I am way, truth, and life.”

When I was proposing names for this blog two years ago, the name I liked the most was “The Indefinite Article.” You see, I believe Unitarian Universalism and other liberal expressions of faith are like indefinite articles. We are a way, a truth, a life. The folks at the Chronicle went with the definite. I had also proposed “Keeping the Faith,” and action and a journey. The Chronicle editors changed it to “Keep the Faith” because it was directive and definitive.

Although I am all for being explicit in communications, which is why we create covenants in our congregations, sometimes there is an elegance in the indefinite, or even in the absence of an article.

John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.” Is perhaps the most quoted passage in response to my more “indefinite article” approach. Fundamentalists use this passage as irrefutable truth that Jesus and Christianity are the only path to salvation.

There can be no doubt that the author of John, who most scholars do not believe would have been the disciple himself, had as his primary objective, making Jesus the Christ. Chapter 20 verses 30 and 31 even say, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in his name.”

And so, it is likely that the author meant exactly what he wrote. In the Greek original, the definite article “ho”, which is in the nominative singular feminine form, is clearly present…”I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Interestingly, the indefinite article in Greek is seldom used and specifically means “one.” No clarification needed here. Jesus is THE way, THE truth, and THE life, not one way, one truth, or one life, at least according to the gospel of John….

Of course, we have no way of knowing whether or not Jesus actually said these words, especially to that specificity. The best guess of modern day biblical scholars is that he did not. The Jesus Seminar, which is a group of scholars who systematically analyze the Christian scriptures toward the goal of determining the authenticity of Jesus’ words, have come to the conclusion that almost none of the words attributed to Jesus in John, were actually uttered. John is a persuasive story toward a specific goal.

For arguments sake, let’s say that Jesus did say something about being way, truth, and life. Although he may have understood and spoken the Greek that John was written in, the common language of the land, and almost certainly his native tongue, was Aramaic, which is a Semitic language closer to Hebrew, and very different from Greek. Now there is also the 50-80 year gap of oral tradition between Jesus’ death and the time that John was likely written. But even if Jesus spoke the words, definite articles in Aramaic are even more troublesome. The definite article doesn’t really exist in Aramaic, but is embedded and expressed in the noun itself, which has three forms. A definite article is expressed via the emphatic form of the noun, but is not really so definite as in English. If that wasn’t enough, Biblical Aramaic and modern Aramaic are different and noun forms have changed over time. For example, emphatic nouns are more used in modern Aramaic than they were in biblical Aramaic….

“I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Regardless of what, if anything, was said, it seems impossible to know definitively how definite Jesus was being here.

It is interesting to look at languages that have no articles at all, like Latin and Russian. I never studied Latin, but do speak Russian and even have a Russian Bible. It says:

“Ya yest’ put, i istina, i zhizn’.” Literally “I am way, truth, and life.” An interesting aspect of this is that, in Russian, the noun “to be” is usually not voiced in the present tense. If you and I were speaking to each other , I would simply say, “Ya put, i istina, i zhizn”…or “I way, and truth, and life.” The verb form “yest’” (I am) is included here because it is also emphasized in the various Hebrew forms of the Hebrew Scriptures…and expresses more of an existential quality…One might say, “I exist as way, and truth, and life,” but even that wouldn’t be exactly correct.

The point is that, without any articles at all, I believe languages like Russian are actually more robust because meaning cannot be so clearly defined, or misinterpreted, with a single qualifier. Meaning must be derived by other means…nuance, word order, emphasis, and more in-depth conversation…The meaning of “Ya yest’ put, i istina, i zhizn’,” requires more information to be fully understood.

I believe that liberal expressions of faith are more like the indefinite article. We are not the way, the truth, and the life…perhaps we are a way, a truth and a life…But even the singular indefinite article is limiting. I see liberal faith as faith with no articles at all. And in that absence, I find even more strength. I believe the Bible loses so much of its power if we limit it to a singular and definite meaning. When we say that there is only “the way, and the truth, and the life,” we seal revelation, and there is nothing new to learn.

The Unitarian Universalist principles, for example, don’t say that we are the way or have the truth…or even a way or a truth….Our principles say that we are on a free and responsible search for truth and meaning…..no articles, just truth and just meaning. What we mean by truth and meaning then requires more discussion and explanation and interpretation and even debate. Unitarian Universalism requires nuance, and and emphasis and more in-depth conversation. I actually believe all religions require this, because I don’t believe any sacred text can be taken at literal face value. To do so might make it easier on our brains, but would sell the authors short.

Neither our lives nor the laws of the universe that sustains us, are naturally definite or indefinite. The universe does not operate on a law of dualisms or even of certainty. There may be order and predictability amidst the chaos, but seldom certainty.

When I was in the Navy we learned that no major incident had a single cause. When we had a fire onboard the ship, or when an aircraft went down, or ships collided, we were required to investigate and seek to determine the cause of the accident. But there was never a single cause. There were always many causes, which combined served to compound the accident. “Many” in this case serves as a partitive article, which English doesn’t have like other languages, but compensates for.

Think about a hurricane, something near and dear to our hearts here on the Gulf Coast. The fact that hurricanes even exist is a seemingly miraculous event. They require just the right balance of air temperature, water temperature, wind speed and height, and if all those things are right, they are still subject to the influence of other weather systems and pressures to sustain themselves and go the direction they do. They are happier over water, which is where we wish they would stay too. There is isn’t a single cause for the perfect storm.

The eastern religions figured this out a long time ago. That’s why Buddhism doesn’t have single path to salvation. they have an eightfold path of action, and practice, and living. Of wisdom, and ethical conduct and mental development–right action, right speech, right livelihood, right attitude, right intention, and so on. It takes many factors altogether to create a hurricane or an accident, but it also takes many factors to practice our faith well.

The Taoists seem to be a bit more “definite” as they address THE Tao…THE path…But the Tao, the path, the great integrity, as it has been called, is all-encompassing…it includes everything that exists and doesn’t exist. But the Tao also cannot be defined…

The Tao te Ching opens with the words (a modern translation):

The Tao that can be told is not the universal Tao. The named that can be named is not the universal name. In the infancy of the universe, there were no names. Naming fragments the mysteries of life into ten thousand things and their manifestations. Yet mysteries and manifestations spring from the same source…The Tao (the path) which is the mystery within manifestation, the manifestation within mystery, the naming of the unnamed, the unnaming of the named. When these interpretations are in full attendance, we will pass the gates of naming notions in our journey toward transcendence.

And Jesus said…

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going.” … I am the way, the truth and the life….

To be a person of faith who does not take the path of the definite article…one must have some comfort with ambiguity. One must be willing to work out truth and meaning with nuance, emphasis, and more in-depth conversation.

10 Responses

Lovely post, Rev. Matt. The tricks that language can play over many years and translations is a constant source of wonder to me. Alas, arguments such as these fall on deaf ears with most Christians I know, who proclaim, “But the Bible is the word of God!” No mistakes or bias could possibly have crept in over the years. No one could possibly have worked on the writing or translating of the Bible who was not divinely inspired.

Question–in the context of Unitarian Universalism being a way, a truth and a life seems to suggest a recognition for salvation and belief in life after death. How can this be? Even saying “all rivers flow into the same ocean” recognizes there is an ocean. Are you making the definitive statement there is an “ocean?”

Second, the Jesus Seminar has been debunked time and time again, as little more than a platform for liberal theologians (despite there being a few token orthodox theologians participating). And certainly the Gospel of John does not lend itself to liberal theological ideas. The Jesus Seminar hardly speaks for the Christian Church.

Historically, Unitarians and especially Universalists definitely held a belief in life after death. As I’ve said repeatedly over the years, today belief is secondary in modern Unitarian Universalism, and it is a personal proposition. Whether someone believes in life after death is up to them. However, a belief in salvation does not automatically presume a belief in life after death. Salvation, as in the Buddhist sense, can simply be cessation of suffering here and now.

As far as the Jesus Seminar, conservative biblical scholars may have debunked them, but they are respected and esteemed scholars with a systematic methodology. No, they don’t speak for the “Christian Church,” but that makes their research even more valid because it would have less bias. Never mind that there is no unified “Christian Church” unless you’re asking the Pope….

Rev. Matt, this is a post which actually needs a good amount of discussion mainly because of the fundamental difference we have amongst the revealed religions that exist today. How man interprets what was spoken or revealed is an important point of contention. Who interpretted it and how many times has a certain item in the scriptures has been updated and why – because the reasons for change does not have any basis if the scriptures would have remained in the original form, with the belief these were the words of God. Any translator or interpretter is just doing what he believes it should have meant. In this case there could even be some conflict of interest or pressure from some special interest groups.

If one believes the revelations in the original form were from a Supreme Being then what He has stated cannot be changed over time. We have to maintain the original as baseline and as we gain in knowledge we should only use the baseline for researching to find answers for today.

Once we keep going to newer and newer edition of the original, we (man) has already diluted it to a point that the meessage from todays scripture is entirely different from what the Creator wanted to convey.

I just wanted to make this point that you take any language and try to translate into another, you will alter some meaning and a tranlator may take some liberties.

Again Matt…your presumption includes a definitive; that while there may be many paths to salvation, salvation remains the definitive. This definitive (or any other definitive) seems to totally contradict Unitarian Universalism tradition.

Now, might I suggest you once again examine your arguement of there being no definitives in view of your postualting your view of indefinites in the context of definitives?

Like I said, if you argue that all rivers flow into the same ocean, then you acknowledge the definitive statement there is an ocean.

Again Bevo…You can’t seem to hear what others are saying, but insist on repeating your original argument. There is no definitive here. Salvation does not mean salvation in an afterlife in all traditions.

Further, I never argued that there are no definitives. I argued that things aren’t always as definitive as they seem.

“I never argued that there are no definitives. I argued that things aren’t always as definitive as they seem.”

You’re arguing from both sides. Either something is definitive or it is not.

Yes, I agree that many things aren’t always as definitive as they seem. But again, returning to your original argument, that is, that all rivers flow into the same ocean, makes the definitive statement that there is an ocean.

This is all I ask in your considering your argument. Your arguement states two basic thoughts; one, being an indefinite statement pertaining to there only being “one river,” and two, an definitive statement that there is an “ocean.”

You can’t have it both ways. If the river is indefinite, then so also is the ocean.

WOW! This is deep! Since we know sacred writings were recorded over a rather lenghty period of time and often in languages now unused or which once had or had not vowels to clarify, or where one word had one or more meanings, we are left to not know for sure but to place our faith where we find it most comfortable. If that means varied paths to whatever is the ultimate goal…so be it. I believe everyone is free to take their own path, and we each are free to advocate for the beauty of the path we’re on. If it is all beautiful…so much the better for humankind

I just wanted to respond to your comment ‘spyglass10′. your first and second remarks. Wow !it is deep !! is absolutely a correct deduction. But I stop there because I can relate this to my scripture – The Quran, the word deep is still quite shallow at the present time, because with the advent of computers and advanced technology of today (maybe the last 50 years), this ‘Unused Language’ as you crudely described is yeilding to people of knowledge, treasures never before imagined !! And just as an fyi, the whole Quran was revealed in 23 years, all of the 114 chapters beginning with the Creator revealing only the first five verses of the chapter 96, at the start of the revelation, the first verse saying:

1. Read…In the name of your Lord who has created (all that exists)

All of the 114 chapters of the Quran have been since the time the first revelation started were committed to memory and now millions of young and old have the whole Quran to memory.

What computers and advanced technology has revealed is mind blowing, even the best literary authors admit that this scripture, in its original form has so many hidden keys that no human even if they tried to copy will not be able to.

That is one reason why scriptures in their original form should not be changed. Now check this out: There is one word in the Quran, it marks the middle of the 114 chapters – if one was to count words and letters and divide by two, this is the place where one ends up.

Now tell me if we (humans) try to change the original scripture, what would happen to this crucial key ? That is why in the Quran the Creator said I am responsible for safekeeping of this scripture and you can see how – millions have it committed to memory in addition to whatever other plans the Creator has.

Sorry to be a bit wordy and maybe I was not exactly to the point, but I wanted to get this across in relation to my earlier post.

Bevo, you assume that the “ocean” to which all rivers lead allows only your definition of faith? To me, that ocean could be called “internal peace.” Some may see that as salvation. You reach the ocean of internal peace through your Christian faith. You may even consider the ocean to be an afterlife of some sort. Even though we see the ocean through different lenses, it could still be the same ocean.

As an aside, is it even remotely possible for you to consider the viewpoints of others, or do you exist solely to find chinks in the (figurative) dam?

If you really can’t find it within yourself to acknowledge the differing beliefs of others (acknowledge, not agree with), then why do you post here?